# Document Shepherd Writeup
*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
There is broad agreement in the WG to go forward with this draft.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There have been few individuals complaining about some of the wordings
describing the reasons of moving IKEv1 to historic, but I think
we managed to reach consensus on the wording.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
This is moving old very widely implemented protocol IKEv1, which have already
been replaced and obsoleted by IKEv2 in 2005, to historic status and also
deprecates several weak or unspecified algorithms used by it. Thus there
are lots of implementations out there and this document allows implementors
to remove their support from the old IKEv1 protocol, by giving stronger signal
that is past time to migrate any IKEv1 left to IKEv2.
### Additional Reviews
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
No.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No applicable.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
Document does not contain Yang module.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
None needed.
### Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
attention from subsequent reviews?
Security area has already been reviewing this document.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
This document contains rationale why to move IKEv1 to historic status, and
should be combined with the IESG action document that moves IKEv1 (RFC2407,
RFC2408 and RFC2409) to Historic status. This document also includes
deprecation of several weak or unspecified cryptographic algorithms, and
because of that needs to be published as an RFC.
12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
emails.
The author and their employer(s) have no IPR. No one else claimed IPR
and it seemed to be impossible to have IPR on this.
13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
please provide a justification.
Yes.
14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
guidelines document.
The abstract does not mention the directly RFCs this document is updating.
Those documents are the RFCs listing mandatory to implement algorithms
and the abstract do say "A number of old algorithms that are associated
with IKEv1, and not widely implemented for IKEv2 are deprecated as well."
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
Yes.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All of the normative references are RFCs.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
[BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
plan for their completion?
No.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
Yes. It moves IKEv1 to Historic which need associated IESG action document
to do the actual change for status of those RFCs (RFC2407, RFC2408, and RFC2409).
It also lists updating RFC8221, and RFC8247 which are IKEv2 documents that list
mandatory to implement cryptographic algorithms for IKEv2, because it marks
several of those algorithms to DEPRECATED status.
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).
This document adds new column to the IKEv2 cryptographic algorithms
IANA registry, and will mark some of the algorithms in those registries
as DEPRECATED.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
This document does not create new IANA registries.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
